Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Do you honestly think that missiles and aircraft would be used? How long before EVERYONE stood up and attacked the government then? See your neighbors house hit with a rocket, and you would react fast.

Pretty easy to overwhelm the government, even in DC with a million people just protesting...

The number of people you'd need would depend on who joins. A bunch of unarmed and poorly motivated people with disparate agendas join, you're gonna need a lot of people. The IT dept of the Pentagon joins, you need a lot less people. People in mainstream media, banking, utilities, energy, state/local govts join, that can make a huge difference.

I'd like to think that our 3 million volunteer citizen soldiers would refuse to "go to war" against US civilians, even civilians behaving badly. But things like this have a way of starting from something isolated that didn't seem significant, and snowballing quickly before anyone realizes its gotten out of hand.

I think that this is fitting. Our armed forces would not want to go house to house, more technology or not, it would be nearly impossible to win. Look at how the US did in Vietnam against a force that was ages behind us in terms of technology and advanced weaponry

They did just fine. Politics lost that war, not a lack of military skill.

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan today. We can beat the bad guys on whatever field they choose. We can beat them during the day, during the night, in a hurricane or a blizzard. We can hunt them and find them from K-town to J-bad. We can drag them out of their homes or tents in the middle if the night, or we can pick them off with a rocket from 10,000 AGL. Our military is trained, equipped, and stands ready to defeat or destroy whatever enemy they're given, and can go tie to tie with any force that's ever been thrown together on the earth.

Unfortunately, what we didn't know in Vietnam, but what we've learned over the past decade, is that fighting an insurgency is not about killing bad guys, it's about winning friends. While a U.S. home-grown insurgency might make some initial progress, I doubt it would keep traction long enough to become much more than a scattered band of outlaws. Without popular support, it would die quickly.

Now, there are a lot of people who support the second amendment, but how many in this country are willing to die for it? That's going to be the basis of your insurgency, and with that narrow a cause, it's not going to be sustainable.

In order to win this fight, you don't need to beat the Army, you need to beat Washington and Madison Ave.

Do you honestly think that missiles and aircraft would be used? How long before EVERYONE stood up and attacked the government then? See your neighbors house hit with a rocket, and you would react fast.

Pretty easy to overwhelm the government, even in DC with a million people just protesting...

Now arm that million...

Then you've got an armed mob that's far more likely to devolve into the worst crime spree in US history rather than become a positive agent for political change.

I'd like to think that our 3 million volunteer citizen soldiers would refuse to "go to war" against US civilians, even civilians behaving badly. But things like this have a way of starting from something isolated that didn't seem significant, and snowballing quickly before anyone realizes its gotten out of hand.

It'll start as a simple activation to maintain peace and provide a security posture for an armed mob outside the Capitol building in the state. Once there, tensions will increase until someone on one side or the other gets shaky enough to squeeze the trigger, after which it will be combat. People will start dying.

Once combat starts, my Soldiers will fall back on their training. Nobody is worrying about constitutionality at this point, they're worried about not dying. My people have ingrained and indoctrinated training to fall back onto while their minds go blank, and other people around them wearing their uniform doing exactly the same thing.

The armed mob has a fight or flight response.

I'm not saying an American insurgency is impossible, I'm just saying its not a black and white deal, and it'll be far more difficult than you might imagine.

Isn't the US Military an assembly of....American citizens? Officials would have to have some serious motivational skills to convince soliders to attack kill and confiscate weapons. It wouldn't even be cost effective to do that. Makes more sense to tax the s4it out of weapons instead of kill the tax payer. But I can easily see a protest that turns into a riot where citizens are killed.

I'd LOVE to hear you and your buddies tell me what an "assault rifle" is first.
Second, Id love to hear your justification for wanting to ban them.

Anything that has a "burst fire" setting/mode, and any gun that fires rounds or until the magazine is empty.

What you think they are compared to what I think they are doesn't matter. Nothing more than hand guns/shotguns/hunting rifles should be legal. You don't need them. Unless you're a revolutionary troublemaker who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

Ah, there's nothing new in this thread, same silly stuff
Yes, just because a gun is black and not wood grained makes it
Completely different. The color is literally the only difference
No offense, but educate yourself before trying to discuss this

Anything that has a "burst fire" setting/mode, and any gun that fires rounds or until the magazine is empty.

What you think they are compared to what I think they are doesn't matter. Nothing more than hand guns/shotguns/hunting rifles should be legal. You don't need them. Unless you're a revolutionary troublemaker who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

Ok, so they already are banned. Do you want to ban them twice?

Another question.... Since assault rifles are so evil, tell me...
How many times have they been used in crimes and how many people have been killed from them?

Then you've got an armed mob that's far more likely to devolve into the worst crime spree in US history rather than become a positive agent for political change.

In this scenario, are yo imagining the million man march with guns and air jordans? Yea, I went there.

Who said anything about gathering like that and arming themselves. I would think by the time they got to Washington, they were already geared up for one thing, and one thing only, not looting while listening to JFK and MLK speeches play over the local DJs PA system.

It simply depends on whether members of law enforcement and military side and/or empathize with those in the revolt. If it's a small faction of individuals whom neither the military or overwhelming majority of Americans support then they have no chance.

That being said, if that small faction happens to be the top few percent of Americans with regards to wealth and control of power then I could see it being a possibility.

Another question.... Since assault rifles are so evil, tell me...How many times have they been used in crimes and how many people have been killed from them?

Who's head is up who's aZz? Lol

Now are you talking about during the course of war aswell?

Let's be real here. Assault rifles were designed for one purpose...to kill. This is coming for the owner of an AK. The history of the AK was not for sport (unless you consider war a sport). The Soviets developed the AK to be an effective combat rifle within 400 meters. Now you have to me. While the AK was designed to be an effective killing machine I, obviously, do not use it for that. Hell, I can't see myself using it for much aside for range shooting and home use. The last time I went to the mall, out to eat, etc. etc. I can tell you that I didn't have my AK with me for self-defense simply because carrying it around is unrealistic. I find it odd that people forget what the original purpose was for most assault rifles.

Let's be real here. Assault rifles were designed for one purpose...to kill. This is coming for the owner of an AK. The history of the AK was not for sport (unless you consider war a sport). The Soviets developed the AK to be an effective combat rifle within 400 meters. Now you have to me. While the AK was designed to be an effective killing machine I, obviously, do not use it for that. Hell, I can't see myself using it for much aside for range shooting and home use. The last time I went to the mall, out to eat, etc. etc. I can tell you that I didn't have my AK with me for self-defense simply because carrying it around is unrealistic. I find it odd that people forget what the original purpose was for most assault rifles.

So you own an AK, and feel you cannot justify your purchase? So, someone forced you to buy it and keep it all this time? Or did you WANT it?

Blanket banning based off of features of a rifle that do not impact how deadly it can be is insane. High cap mags are the problem? Really? Tell me how reloading takes too long. What does a pistol grip do to make the rifle more deadly? How about a collapsable stock. Does it make the bullets faster, or makes them catch fire and seek out children as the target?

Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you should force others to agree with you. Just because there are criminals out there, does not mean I lose my rights. Just because you can't understand why someone wants to own an AR-15, does not mean I should not be allowed to own it.

You are more than welcome to have your opinion, but to be honest I don't have to justify why I want one, or why I own one to anyone. Talk to Tailo about why he needs his weapons. He spends a great deal of money on class 3 weapons, and enjoys them all. None of them have jumped up and killed anyone, not even one child, and his are fully automatic... Some of them are actual, honest to goodness assault rifles. What has his ownership of these great weapons done to personally impact your life?

So you own an AK, and feel you cannot justify your purchase? So, someone forced you to buy it and keep it all this time? Or did you WANT it?

Blanket banning based off of features of a rifle that do not impact how deadly it can be is insane. High cap mags are the problem? Really? Tell me how reloading takes too long. What does a pistol grip do to make the rifle more deadly? How about a collapsable stock. Does it make the bullets faster, or makes them catch fire and seek out children as the target?

Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you should force others to agree with you. Just because there are criminals out there, does not mean I lose my rights. Just because you can't understand why someone wants to own an AR-15, does not mean I should not be allowed to own it.

You are more than welcome to have your opinion, but to be honest I don't have to justify why I want one, or why I own one to anyone. Talk to Tailo about why he needs his weapons. He spends a great deal of money on class 3 weapons, and enjoys them all. None of them have jumped up and killed anyone, not even one child, and his are fully automatic... Some of them are actual, honest to goodness assault rifles. What has his ownership of these great weapons done to personally impact your life?

Nope, I enjoy my purpose. I just don't act like I don't know the history of its design. And obviously you didn't read my post. I never called for any blanket banning, or banning for that matter. So keep your rant to yourself.

Nope, I enjoy my purpose. I just don't act like I don't know the history of its design. And obviously you didn't read my post. I never called for any blanket banning, or banning for that matter. So keep your rant to yourself.

I read your post. You stated you don't see any purpose for the rifle except to kill at distance, and that you can only use it for range duty, and you find it odd that people don't know the "history" of the weapon.

We kinda do know the history, and it has nothing to do with legislation being pushed through. The "blanket ban" I referred to, was not brought up or being pushed by you, but was referring to what is being attempted. No one said you were for it, or against it. It is the topic we are discussing.

At what point did ANYONE who appears to have knowledge on the topic say the history of it's design and original intention in military form was paramount? Sure, understanding why a weapon was made is important, but it is not even a consideration for this topic. My Mauser was designed to kill American soldiers at distance. It's original intention was to kill US soldiers, and it would do it very well. Why is it not on the list, as it was spawned from war and designed to kill Americans?

I read your post. You stated you don't see any purpose for the rifle except to kill at distance, and that you can only use it for range duty, and you find it odd that people don't know the "history" of the weapon.

Read beyond a 3rd grade level. I stated the rifle was designed for that purpose. I am speaking for myself when I refer to my uses. I say that because I mention I as in me. You are good at rants, but poor at actually making a point.

Let's be real here. Assault rifles were designed for one purpose...to kill. .

Quote:

Originally Posted by badfast

While the AK was designed to be an effective killing machine I, obviously, do not use it for that. Hell, I can't see myself using it for much aside for range shooting and home use.

Check...Mate'ed yourself
What something is (arguably) designed for means nothing. What something is USED for does.

You avoided my question. You want to ban assault rifles... Since you agree with a ban, you MUST have come to this conclusion based on some empirical
data that proves assault weapons are a problem with violence and death. So I ask again.... How many people have been killed outside of war with an assault rifle?

Check...Mate'ed yourself
What something is (arguably) designed for means nothing. What something is USED for does.

You avoided my question. You want to ban assault rifles... how many people have been killed outside of war with an assault rifle?

Sure, it's design does matter. It's design is why it is so effective in this mass shootings and in the conduct of war.

I didn't check mate myself or avoid your question. I just had your clarify your question more rather than leave it as vague as you did. And why does everyone assume I want to ban assault rifles? Because I can admit that my AK is more effective weapon than my Kahr I am viewed as wanting to ban assault rifles? Stop with the kneejerk reactions and assumptions.

Sure, it's design does matter. It's design is why it is so effective in this mass shootings and in the conduct of war.

I didn't check mate myself or avoid your question. I just had your clarify your question more rather than leave it as vague as you did. And why does everyone assume I want to ban assault rifles? Because I can admit that my AK is more effective weapon than my Kahr I am viewed as wanting to ban assault rifles? Stop with the kneejerk reactions and assumptions.

It's design has nothing to do with crime statistics. Hate to tell you this, but my Glock would have been just as effective in a classroom full of 5 year olds. In all of the crimes that have been committed with this weapon, or its variants, none of them used the weapon for it's intended purposes.

Your clarification was also BS. Look up the statistics of crimes committed with an NFA weapon since 1986. Find a hand full and you get a cookie. I'll give you a hint... The numbers are so low, I doubt you will find one murder with an NFA weapon.